Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
11. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my reading of it.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:08 AM
Mar 2012

The main part of the statute does give a lot of stipulations on what constitutes self-defense, here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=448082

However, it looks to me like Zimmerman is either extremely lucky or knew exactly what he had to do to follow the letter of the law, and he executed well enough to gum up any prosecution. I mean, he called 911 and expressed the fact that he felt threatened. You can't prove that Zimmerman was involved in any illegal activity when this started. If he struggled with Martin on a neighbor's property, Martin was in a place he shouldn't have been. (Then again, neither should Zimmerman, but he's alive to tell his side of the story while Martin isn't). Instead of, say, shooting Martin in the back, he grappled with him first, and probably let him "win" (Martin was only half his weight and 3/4 of his size) so he could then say he feared for his life when he shot the kid.

I don't know if it went like that, but I presume Zimmerman, who was apparently obsessed with guns and policing, knew about this law, and might have thought through exactly what he would do in a situation like this.

If I'm wrong, why the hell haven't they arrested the guy yet, and why are they having such trouble with it? I mean look at what's happened so far:

Remember a week ago when the Sanford Police Chief resigned temporarily, coupled with that story was a detail that the Seminole County State Attorney Norman Wolfinger had withdrawn from the case. Here is the reason he gave:

“In the interest of the public safety of the citizens of Seminole County and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would respectfully request the executive assignment of another state attorney for the investigation and any prosecution arising from the circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin. This request is being made in light of the public good with the intent of toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of this investigation.”


Usually when an attorney withdraws from the case, you get a more specific explanation. If I were suspicious, I'd say he took one look at this case and shrank away in terror, not wanting to have his name and reputation near it.

They then for a few days talked about bringing it to a Grand Jury, but nothing came of that. Then governor Rick Scott talked about getting a special prosecutor. Now, have you ever heard of a criminal case outside of government that required a special prosecutor? I've never heard of it being proposed on a homicide case.

Now Scott's appointed a task force led by the Lt. Governor. When was the last major homicide that required a task force to look into it? They didn't do this with OJ. Why would you appoint, of anyone, the Lt. Governor to be in charge of it? No part of this seems to resemble a routine criminal matter.

Here's what I think is going to happen: the task force is going to waste time and look busy until after the election, which is when they'll announce that they can't bring the case. They have no way of getting around this law. For the Repubs and the Gun-Righters, this is a major scandal, and they were warned by Prosecutors and Police Chiefs that things like this would happen if they passed SYG.

My conclusion: Martin's family has no legal recourse on this-- at all. They are screwed. Race doesn't have much to do with this, either. It's the stupid SYG law. It doesn't matter if we get millions of signatures, if we march, protest, flood the governors office with calls, or even riot. They cannot convict Zimmerman, the most likely can't try him, and there's a good chance they can't even arrest for anything other than a minor felony.

My sympathies to Trayvon Martin's mother.
You've gotta be kidding me Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #1
aka legalized murder noiretextatique Mar 2012 #3
Self defense is in the eyes of the survivor Hugabear Mar 2012 #2
Well said, Hugabear. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #4
There's a hidden part of the law. caseymoz Mar 2012 #7
Thank you. That was not in the statutes I read. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #8
Not just JB. What about ALEC, who wrote it? caseymoz Mar 2012 #12
kick Baitball Blogger Mar 2012 #22
Excellent comment. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #41
I'm going to keep quoting myself iverglas Mar 2012 #15
Stand Your Ground doesn't include a change in presumption. X_Digger Mar 2012 #20
I was replying to a post iverglas Mar 2012 #36
Thanks. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #40
It says the police have to have probable cause that the use of force wasn't reasonable. X_Digger Mar 2012 #19
If "standard" why is it repeated here, then? caseymoz Mar 2012 #24
It's redundant yes.. what, you think prosecution can happen without probable cause!?! X_Digger Mar 2012 #28
Yes, but once probable cause is vacated caseymoz Mar 2012 #30
Depends at what level and if jeopardy is attached. X_Digger Mar 2012 #33
I haven't even gone into the "as permitted in . . ." part. caseymoz Mar 2012 #34
(1) and (2) don't apply- those are castle doctrine -- we're not talking about.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #35
We'll see. caseymoz Mar 2012 #37
I'm optomistic, yes. X_Digger Mar 2012 #38
You have a problem here. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #44
Maybe that point isn't demonstrated. caseymoz Mar 2012 #50
A jury could find intent in some of this statements during the call. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #51
The problem is that people who think like animals and want to kill JDPriestly Mar 2012 #42
As I said in another reply, people who think like animals and want to kill.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #45
But they will have to go to court and face a jury which Zimmerman needs to do. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #47
There's nothing in the law stopping them from arresting him right now. X_Digger Mar 2012 #49
Yes. I agree, but apparently there have been few convictions JDPriestly Mar 2012 #52
But as in this situation, this law makes people like Zimmerman feel empowered JDPriestly Mar 2012 #39
People inclined to go looking for trouble aren't going to let a law get in their way. X_Digger Mar 2012 #43
No matter what he said after the shooting, he admitted in his call to 911 JDPriestly Mar 2012 #46
I agree. X_Digger Mar 2012 #48
Agreed. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #53
No CIVIL recourse either? liberalhistorian Mar 2012 #10
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my reading of it. caseymoz Mar 2012 #11
The only hope is with a federal civil rights case Major Nikon Mar 2012 #14
That's exactly what it means and it's even worse than that Major Nikon Mar 2012 #13
Actually, ALEC wrote the law. caseymoz Mar 2012 #26
Same nut, different tree Major Nikon Mar 2012 #29
sadly, they have one quasi-legal recourse allowed to them magical thyme Mar 2012 #23
Except other states have adopted photocopies of law. caseymoz Mar 2012 #31
No, the police may not arrest *anyone* without probable cause X_Digger Mar 2012 #17
The "Gunshine State".... daleanime Mar 2012 #5
And his brother was shot by police because he was threatening to commit suicide? csziggy Mar 2012 #6
How do people in other civilized countries manage to survive without reaching for weapons sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #9
What I can't understand is, why does any state feel the NEED for this kind of law? William Seger Mar 2012 #16
no, but when I lived in Massachusetts they enacted a law magical thyme Mar 2012 #25
Arguments used to end with fistfights. Now they end with dead bodies. mainer Mar 2012 #18
This is the world that Republicans have created for us. Baitball Blogger Mar 2012 #21
To think this is 2012 and we are going backwards goclark Mar 2012 #27
Your last sentence says it all. Baitball Blogger Mar 2012 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reuters: Man Lives to Tel...»Reply #11